Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 16, 2012, 12:21 p.m. EST by TheRazor
(-329)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Now lets see if the workers and the Bakery union step up and buy the company. This will be the workers owning the means of production. If they dont step up, capitalism is proven to be superior to all other systems! If the workers dont unite, SHAME ON THEM AND SHAME ON OWS!

Huh? If they weren't able to save up enough money, at their low wages, to purchase a major corporation, capitalism is proven to be superior? Hell no, that would prove what a colossal failure capitalism is.

Concentrating all of the wealth in the hands of a few is destroying this civilization. We're in a downward spiral because no one has any money to spend, let alone purchase a major corporation.

No, TheRazor. The unions don't have the cash to buy a major corporation and then go on and support all of the workers that they cover across the country. This is true even for the Teamsters.

What destroys corporations are greed and bad management decisions. For instance, hostess is still making unhealthy food when Americans are finally searching for healthy alternatives, and they are paying their executives enormous sums of money while cheating and cutting back on the workers. Bad mix.

Why don't you and Shayneh get in on this opportunity? Get Bain Capital to finance it for you. Just think of the profit you could extract from this company as it dies a slow death. Replace all of the workers at minimum wage, take out huge loans, receive a huge salary, and with just a few years of hard work declare bankruptcy, and pocket tens of millions. All perfectly legal too! I'm sure Mitt would give you all the necessary details on how to achieve the American dream.

McDonalds fries are pretty resilient. Some guy did a time lapse of a bunch of foods, after a couple months they all were putrid masses of goo, except those fries. They looked almost freshly cooked even after months!

I used to have the occasional Grand Angus burger, but started getting nauseous straight away. Did some checking, and found out that to get the Heart Foundation approval tick (big deal in Australia) they replaced the sugar content in the buns with aspartame. Never eating their crap again.

Its bankrupt and the assets will be sold at auction. If ever there was a chance to put into play the priciples that so many here expound, this is it. If this incredible opportunity goes by and the Bakery union fails to act, what does that say? It truly says European style worker coops arent the panacea everyone says they are.

I see unions getting much of the flak for the collapse of Hostess but they had other problems. Namely corporate raiders (management) who gave themselves obscene "performance based" raises prior to bankruptcy. If you can spare a moment to upvote this thread on reddit, it will be greatly appreciated:

Twinkies and DingDongs have been in trouble for a long time. It's a little thing called 'healthier eating habits' a changing consumer marketplace leading to decreased market share. It's why Coke branched out into flavored water style drinks and sports beverages.

The problem is not the Twinkie and DingDong unions. The problem is super hydrogenated fat, high fructose corn syrup, superfine sugar, cellulose fiber, something in the center that nobody knows what it is but it stays gooey and greasy for years. aka Twinkies and DingDongs. Ding Dong.

Healthier snack foods have already been created. That's why Twinkies and Ding Dongs have been losing market share. And if company management had done it's job and innovated new healthier snack products, they probably wouldn't be going out of business. It's not the Unions job to do that. Nobody is going to stay in business when they're losing market share. Union or no union.

Products live and products die. That's not the fault of unions. Is it the candlemakers fault that the candle market collapsed after the invention of electricity? Was it the candle maker union that killed the candle market?? Was it the buggy maker union that killed the horse and buggy market?? Jeesh. Do you read what you write?

What you say is true, but there are a dozen or more bakeries that will be available at firesale prices. Perfect chance for the workers to own the means of production. Local groups have the opportunity to buy 1 facility and produce an innovative product. Or do you concede that "worker bees" can't do this?

I expect Hostess will sell the recipe and naming rights to Little Debby , Kraft, ??, etc and these facilities will be closed, anyway. Hell, the people can have a bread factory. The possiblilites are endless.

'Or do you concede that "worker bees" can't do this?' - not at all. Anybody that can raise the capital can do it. Continue making goo filled treats or something else. Whatever they make, they'll be competing with the Krafts, Little Debbie's, whoever. Larger companies who have enormous advantages in economies of scale.

My only point is, it's not the unions fault that Twinkies has been losing market share.

And whether or not the workers or union 'buy' the means of production, does not prove capitalism is 'superior'. It could simply mean that the unions don't want to be in the Twinkie making business. Or that the workers couldn't raise the capital. It does nothing to prove capitalism's superiority. As Razor/DingDong suggests.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the snack food industry is bigger today than it was 50 years ago and still growing. It's just that Twinkies is dying. Look at protein bars. There are innovative products out there. Twinkies Co. didn't get in on that action. And that's why they're going out of business. Not the unions fault.

It's pretty disgusting that Twinkies Co. is blaming the workers and the union for they're own management failures in navigating the market place. Another example - General Mills. They saw the market changing and responded with more whole grain and high fiber in their cereals. Whole grain Twinkies? Who knows. It might have worked.

While it's sad that these people will be losing their jobs, I suspect there are overall increases in snack food manufacturing as a result of the overall growth in the industry.

How does declining sales translate to increasing obesity rates? What sales are declining?

If, as you claim, the rate of sales of fattening foods is declining how can it be that obesity is increasing? The sales of fattening foods must therefore be increasing. The market is speaking but no one is listening (except the suppliers).

It can't be that more fat people are eating more of the supply of fattening foods because obesity is rising. Once a person has been defined as obese eating more does not add to the statistic. No, it must be that non-obese people are consuming more, adding to the increase in sales of fatty foods, and driving up the rates.

It could also be that we are getting better at keeping obese people alive. As new fat folks girth-up (particularly kids) the rate increase. Probably have to look at the demographics to figure that one out.

We did everything we could to save the company," said Joseph Ortuso, a Teamster and sales route driver from New Jersey who'd been with Hostess or its acquisitions for more than two decades. "We never gave up during bankruptcy. We fought in the marketplace to retain our business. In the end, somebody else made the decision."

Ken Hall, the Teamsters secretary-treasurer, said his union didn't doubt Hostess' claims after seeing its books.

"I think it's obvious there was no bluff," said Hall. "Our financial advisers had looked at their books, they had total access. We pushed them in negotiations to where we thought it was the absolute limit, that we would get the most for our members and [still] have a pathway back to prosperity for the company. The bakers' union disagreed with that."

"Frankly, I feel sick about what's going on here," Hall added. "It's a tragic day for 18,000 workers."

I think it's great - Obama said the business wasn't built by the people who own it - well this just goes to prove how wrong he is. They built it and they can shut it down and put lots of people out of work if they so desire.

It's 82 years old. The people running it simply preside over the work that labor produces. The workers/bakers build the products. The execs sit on their fat asses sucking up pay the don't deserve. Now the greedy, selfish, execs who decided to liquidate is asking the judge for almost $2Million for bonuses.

Now what tangent are you off on? How do you go from a company that makes 2 billion in sales going out of business and I say piss poor management must be involved for the current failure and you come back with some non-sense about teamsters?

The teamsters agreed to the companies proposed contract. He Bakers union didn't. The teamsters are pissed. 19000 jobs lost. Piss poor management? No doubt a big part of the problem. But rarely all of the problem.
And if the union takes over ( buys) the business that will guarantee success?

With 2 billion in annual sales? Ummmm - lemme think a mo - shit it does sound impossible don't it? NOT But the employees will likely not get that chance as the current owner will sell off the pieces of the business for more profit - and the employees will be the only ones who get screwed. Familiar story.

I understand Binness just fine. Binness these days is getting as much out as possible in the shortest period of time - sell off the corpse of the freshly dead Binness and look for something else to rape then burn to the ground - let former workers fall where they will. It is the current curriculum in Binness school. Much applauded by wallstreet.